On Monday, 25 May 2015 11:31:47 UTC+1, Rodjk #613 wrote:
> On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 12:28:51 PM UTC+3, John Liang wrote:
> > On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 6:58:07 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
> > > On 25/05/2015 9:26 AM, jdeluise wrote:
> > > > Whisper <
beav...@ozemail.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Not that hard to work out. He never made clay/baseline a
> > > >> priority. Newk/Stolle said if he moved to France 3 months before FO
> > > >> every year & played all tune-ups he would have won a couple FOs no
> > > >> doubt.
> > > >
> > > > er, young teenage Nadal beat Sampras' clay conqueror in his very first
> > > > ATP match. Can't really see it tbh, he had neither the game nor the
> > > > physicality to win on the dirt.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think he had the game. He's played some pretty good stuff on the clay
> > > beating many FO champs. Needed a few chips falling his way though, like
> > > faster sunbaked courts, avoid long points etc. A big factor was
> > > Wimbledon being so soon after FO, so he wasn't going to play baseline
> > > stuff at that time of year. If FO was 6 months apart he probably woulda
> > > won 1 or 2.
> >
> > If he really had a game to win consistently on clay he would have done much better than just 1 semi final showing at FO. He did beat a few FO champ but you had to look at when he beat them. He beat Bruguera when Bruguera was winning about 6 matches in 5 clay court tournaments in 1996, he beat Muster when Muster was coming off an injury, he beat Costa when Costa was a rookie. No woulda could and shoulda can explain his 8 or 9 losses in his 13 attempts at FO.
>
>
> An honest Sampras fan would say that Pete was not that good on clay and for several reasons. Chief among them was the fact that he never really felt comfortable sliding on clay. He could have put in more work on the surface, but Pete realized that his chances of winning there were unlikely and that all the work would not pay off. Sort of like his mentor, Lendl; who put in so much work on grass to make a game not suited for grass only somewhat suitable. Sampras did the math and figured his chances were not that great and so only put in a cursery effort. His style of play (remember when pro tennis sported several styles of play? And all could be successful?)
>
> Pete showed that he was talented enough to win on clay against the best players, but probably would never be able to do so over Bo5 at the French. Endurance was neither a facet of his game or his physical ability.
>
> Again, it (the French) is a hole in his resume. But not enough to bury him as second rate, especially knowing the speed differences in the courts at that time. Remember, up till Pete it was quite common for players to not win all the slams. Borg, Wilander, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Connors, McEnroe, Vilas, Courier...none of them won all four. Andre did, barely, with 1 Wimbledon and 1 FO.
>
> An honest Sampras fan would also say that there is no issues saying that Federer has surpased Pete, but that does not take away from his great career, awesome power game and outstanding sportsmanship.
I an honest Sampras fan and way I see it is that Fed has never gotten near the 6 consecutive years, he benefited from the clown era where due to media pressure the clowns would just hand him matches too cos they were ordered that he was literaly 'unbeatable'. Canas showed this was not the case.